This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FayssalF (talk | contribs) at 23:34, 20 May 2007 (→Extending the ban of Artaxiad to indef: Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:34, 20 May 2007 by FayssalF (talk | contribs) (→Extending the ban of Artaxiad to indef: Support)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Header
Extending the ban of Artaxiad to indef
- Artaxiad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Artaxiad
- Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Artaxiad
- User challenged the community: "one year is too long same thing as a indef, so I see no point in waiting it out so I will do what I have to do"
- This was taken to arbcom for additional review but it was unanswered.
- User is still active
I was wondering if this would be warranted. Checkuser requests since the conclusion of the arbitration case was a rather long list. User was banned by arbcom for a year. Users are banned for a year or more by arbcom to cease disruption. More severe mesures should be taken into account if users behaviour does not improve.
User has more sockpuppets than I'd care to count. One of the check users comment was: "I spent half an hour tracking down this checkuser. It is ridiculous. Here is the tree as I have constructed it. It is incomplete".
-- Cat 13:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- How often does he use sockpuppets? For example, every week, every day, or...? When was the last time he used sockpuppets? —Kyриx 14:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- No real way to know since he uses open proxies. Since his edit behaviour has no real patter (check contribs of User:Lakers for instance), it is very hard to tell. He may also be preforming false flag attacks as he demonstrated an odd familiarity for a banned user: "Checking some users contributions you think I'm using socks, this is either Ararat arev or Adil playing games". -- Cat 15:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at this guy's sockdrawer, it's definitely warranted. Once you use a sock to get around an ArbCom decision, you're effectively telling the community you're not going to follow the rules.
2321 socks? Indef ban.Blueboy96 15:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)- You may want to review the raw data on the checkuser case. There are far more socks (though it might be a commonly used open proxy by other disruptive users - not that it makes this any better). -- Cat 15:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Did this guy attempt to use these account after the block? BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 02:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like he was making socks even while the arbitration was underway, from looking at all the block logs for this guy. That only clinches it--he's effectively thumbing his nose at the community. We don't need him.Blueboy96 02:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Did this guy attempt to use these account after the block? BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 02:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- You may want to review the raw data on the checkuser case. There are far more socks (though it might be a commonly used open proxy by other disruptive users - not that it makes this any better). -- Cat 15:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, this is really simple, if you can come up with valid evidence that (s)he was/is using multiple accounts abusively, I have no qualms with blocking this user indef. Oh, and please block the open proxy. —— Eagle101 04:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Look at the Checkuser--21 confirmed socks. And the clerk said that the list was incomplete. Many of them were active while the arbitration was underway. If you're engaging in sockpuppetry during an arbitration and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be.Blueboy96 04:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- The question of whether to do that rests on whether he used the accounts after the ban or before. If we community ban then it should be for the duration of the arbcom's ban. As it is, any further accounts are blocked so maybe he knows creating them is a waste of time. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 12:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like he used 10 of them after the end of the ArbCom case (two of them only hours after the decision came down) and four in the week before the case was underway. Like I've said before, when you're making sockpuppets while there's an arbitration underway, you're telling the community that you're not going to follow the rules. 10 socks after the final decision? Indef him.
- Active after Arbcom:
- The question of whether to do that rests on whether he used the accounts after the ban or before. If we community ban then it should be for the duration of the arbcom's ban. As it is, any further accounts are blocked so maybe he knows creating them is a waste of time. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 12:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Look at the Checkuser--21 confirmed socks. And the clerk said that the list was incomplete. Many of them were active while the arbitration was underway. If you're engaging in sockpuppetry during an arbitration and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be.Blueboy96 04:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Bmamba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- BWaves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Friesare22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Henbacl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Juntiforces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- KURDBIJISTAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (only hours after ban enacted in ArbCom)
- Restaren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sparala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Starfacs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Torontz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Tricethin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Vrastic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (only hours after ban enacted in ArbCom)
- Active a week before ban:
- Graeco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Kursata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Lakers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Mr. Barnstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Russ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dunno how much more blatant you can get ... this is as egregious as I've seen it.Blueboy96 14:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely. No need for any further discussion here. This is a no-brainer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've extended his block to indefinite. Picaroon (Talk) 17:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Points for that. This was an easy choice, really. If he makes a request to come back and actually stops the socking, plus making an apology, I wouldnt mind reducing it back to the arbcom ban, however. -M 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Slamdunk case. I fully support banning this user. Nardman1 23:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Points for that. This was an easy choice, really. If he makes a request to come back and actually stops the socking, plus making an apology, I wouldnt mind reducing it back to the arbcom ban, however. -M 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've extended his block to indefinite. Picaroon (Talk) 17:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Support as enough evidence is presented. Enough is enough. -- FayssalF - 23:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Extending the ban of Artaxiad to indef
- Artaxiad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Artaxiad
- Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Artaxiad
- User challenged the community: "one year is too long same thing as a indef, so I see no point in waiting it out so I will do what I have to do"
- This was taken to arbcom for additional review but it was unanswered.
- User is still active
I was wondering if this would be warranted. Checkuser requests since the conclusion of the arbitration case was a rather long list. User was banned by arbcom for a year. Users are banned for a year or more by arbcom to cease disruption. More severe mesures should be taken into account if users behaviour does not improve.
User has more sockpuppets than I'd care to count. One of the check users comment was: "I spent half an hour tracking down this checkuser. It is ridiculous. Here is the tree as I have constructed it. It is incomplete".
-- Cat 13:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- How often does he use sockpuppets? For example, every week, every day, or...? When was the last time he used sockpuppets? —Kyриx 14:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- No real way to know since he uses open proxies. Since his edit behaviour has no real patter (check contribs of User:Lakers for instance), it is very hard to tell. He may also be preforming false flag attacks as he demonstrated an odd familiarity for a banned user: "Checking some users contributions you think I'm using socks, this is either Ararat arev or Adil playing games". -- Cat 15:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at this guy's sockdrawer, it's definitely warranted. Once you use a sock to get around an ArbCom decision, you're effectively telling the community you're not going to follow the rules.
2321 socks? Indef ban.Blueboy96 15:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)- You may want to review the raw data on the checkuser case. There are far more socks (though it might be a commonly used open proxy by other disruptive users - not that it makes this any better). -- Cat 15:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Did this guy attempt to use these account after the block? BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 02:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like he was making socks even while the arbitration was underway, from looking at all the block logs for this guy. That only clinches it--he's effectively thumbing his nose at the community. We don't need him.Blueboy96 02:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Did this guy attempt to use these account after the block? BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 02:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- You may want to review the raw data on the checkuser case. There are far more socks (though it might be a commonly used open proxy by other disruptive users - not that it makes this any better). -- Cat 15:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, this is really simple, if you can come up with valid evidence that (s)he was/is using multiple accounts abusively, I have no qualms with blocking this user indef. Oh, and please block the open proxy. —— Eagle101 04:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Look at the Checkuser--21 confirmed socks. And the clerk said that the list was incomplete. Many of them were active while the arbitration was underway. If you're engaging in sockpuppetry during an arbitration and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be.Blueboy96 04:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- The question of whether to do that rests on whether he used the accounts after the ban or before. If we community ban then it should be for the duration of the arbcom's ban. As it is, any further accounts are blocked so maybe he knows creating them is a waste of time. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 12:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like he used 10 of them after the end of the ArbCom case (two of them only hours after the decision came down) and four in the week before the case was underway. Like I've said before, when you're making sockpuppets while there's an arbitration underway, you're telling the community that you're not going to follow the rules. 10 socks after the final decision? Indef him.
- Active after Arbcom:
- The question of whether to do that rests on whether he used the accounts after the ban or before. If we community ban then it should be for the duration of the arbcom's ban. As it is, any further accounts are blocked so maybe he knows creating them is a waste of time. BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 12:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Look at the Checkuser--21 confirmed socks. And the clerk said that the list was incomplete. Many of them were active while the arbitration was underway. If you're engaging in sockpuppetry during an arbitration and you haven't been community banned, you damned well better be.Blueboy96 04:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Bmamba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- BWaves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Friesare22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Henbacl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Juntiforces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- KURDBIJISTAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (only hours after ban enacted in ArbCom)
- Restaren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Sparala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Starfacs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Torontz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Tricethin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Vrastic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (only hours after ban enacted in ArbCom)
- Active a week before ban:
- Graeco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Kursata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Lakers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Mr. Barnstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Russ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dunno how much more blatant you can get ... this is as egregious as I've seen it.Blueboy96 14:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Absolutely. No need for any further discussion here. This is a no-brainer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've extended his block to indefinite. Picaroon (Talk) 17:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Points for that. This was an easy choice, really. If he makes a request to come back and actually stops the socking, plus making an apology, I wouldnt mind reducing it back to the arbcom ban, however. -M 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Slamdunk case. I fully support banning this user. Nardman1 23:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Points for that. This was an easy choice, really. If he makes a request to come back and actually stops the socking, plus making an apology, I wouldnt mind reducing it back to the arbcom ban, however. -M 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've extended his block to indefinite. Picaroon (Talk) 17:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Support as enough evidence is presented. Enough is enough. -- FayssalF - 23:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)